4 ms·

And I really don't care about their sliding rent prices and occupancy levels. People/companies who make their money through solely holding/selling space are som

And I really don't care about their sliding rent prices and occupancy levels. People/companies who make their money through solely holding/selling space are some of the least talented and useful people. You got by for decades floating by on overinflated prices and passive income. I'm sorry your golden ticket has slipped a little, but maybe we can tear down some of your ugly grey boxes and build affordable housing to combat actual problems: inflated housing prices, lack of housing space, lack of affordable commercial space for small businesses.

0max 3y ago
I'd even eat into their business and get people elected that would build state/federally funded mixed income non-market social housing
- bnjms 3y ago
  It would go a long way to merely ban the word “luxury” in marketing.
  - pierat 3y ago
    In a way, I already have for myself. If I see: premium, luxury, professional, (etc) words that classify something to be better, I assume that they really are substandard and are using words like above to make it appear as it is the case.
    - jimmygrapes 3y ago
      Replace it with "government-issued" for a similar effect
      - pierat 3y ago
        I take it that with this snark, that you're a libertarian type... I like government. It provides a framework we all know about, can interact with, and know that everyone's being treated to the same standard. And where you have better governments, it works well. Sure, there's complaints about all implementations, but I prefer a stronger "typed" system. I can plan for it. I can use it. And best of all, I can rely on it. At least in the USA, the problem is that government is underfunded, blamed for bad service, and underfunded some more. And crazy stupid ideas like "social security is the biblical revelations mark of the beast" is some of the reasons why where we are. In my state, the bureau of motor vehicles was identified as "terrible". Investigation was made, and found that it had to do with not enough workers, not enough "open time", and bad communication to customers (us drivers). My state then increased workers at all branches, increased hours on some days to accommodate a wider array of schedules, and now our BMV is superb. So no, I whole-heartedly reject that "government-issued" is in the same class. I refuse to play in faux libertarian narratives.
        deaddodo 3y ago
        > At least in the USA, the problem is that government is underfunded, blamed for bad service, and underfunded some more. And crazy stupid ideas like "social security is the biblical revelations mark of the beast" is some of the reasons why where we are. Or worse, when the same people that parrot the rhetoric that leads to "small govt" get faced with the richer/more developed states deciding to use their "states' rights" to implement those things on their own, they all get together to label it "unconstitutional". Usually out of fear of the influence it will have on their constituents.
Bostonian 3y ago
"People/companies who make their money through solely holding/selling space are some of the least talented and useful people." It's easy to generalize about about a job one has never done. Building, maintaining, and renovating property to keep up with tenants' demands takes capital, effort and brains.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  you are defending the people, not the practices, and I support you there.. economics however, are not physics.. things do change, and change is here.
- rwmj 3y ago
  Don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK the commercial tenant is responsible for shopfitting (and they'd better restore it exactly how it was when they leave!) and maintenance. The commercial landlord of a salon I help with does absolutely nothing, barring taking the rent each month.
  - CHY872 3y ago
    Obviously, it depends. If you’re anywhere near London, you’ll probably have visited the Oxford Street/Regent Street/Carnaby/Seven Dials areas. The former is pretty horrible with half the shops fairly transparent money laundering operations, the latter are nice areas to visit with nice shops and restaurants. The difference is that the latter are single-landlord developments where the former is composed of many landlords each trying to get the highest bid. The difference is the landlord’s value add.
    - rwmj 3y ago
      That's more to do with police underfunding plus their general attitude to fraud which is to ignore it.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Which human-hours created that capital?
RestlessMind 3y ago
Affordable housing is needed for poor people. Poor people stay in expensive areas because that's where jobs and social benefits are. If you don't need office towers, it is mostly because you don't have a big number of jobs there anymore. And with that, you don't have a big number of secondary jobs which affordable housing clients work (food industry, janitors, etc). You also lose the tax base (lower property tax, lower sales tax) and poof goes the revenue which funds social programs most utilized by those who need affordable housing. In short, if a city finds itself not needing office towers, most probably it won't be able to afford affordable housing neither.
- jedberg 3y ago
  People still want to live in cities for the culture and benefits you can only get when a lot of people are in the same place. And those cultural institutions still need service workers. And people working from home in cities still need service workers too. And the restaurants. There will still be plenty of jobs for folks at the lower end of the spectrum, even if all the offices become housing. Arguably even more, since there would be more cultural institutions open at night.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Cities didn't exist until skyscrapers? Weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cities

0max 3y ago

I'd even eat into their business and get people elected that would build state/federally funded mixed income non-market social housing

bnjms 3y ago
It would go a long way to merely ban the word “luxury” in marketing.
- pierat 3y ago
  In a way, I already have for myself. If I see: premium, luxury, professional, (etc) words that classify something to be better, I assume that they really are substandard and are using words like above to make it appear as it is the case.
  - jimmygrapes 3y ago
    Replace it with "government-issued" for a similar effect
    - pierat 3y ago
      I take it that with this snark, that you're a libertarian type... I like government. It provides a framework we all know about, can interact with, and know that everyone's being treated to the same standard. And where you have better governments, it works well. Sure, there's complaints about all implementations, but I prefer a stronger "typed" system. I can plan for it. I can use it. And best of all, I can rely on it. At least in the USA, the problem is that government is underfunded, blamed for bad service, and underfunded some more. And crazy stupid ideas like "social security is the biblical revelations mark of the beast" is some of the reasons why where we are. In my state, the bureau of motor vehicles was identified as "terrible". Investigation was made, and found that it had to do with not enough workers, not enough "open time", and bad communication to customers (us drivers). My state then increased workers at all branches, increased hours on some days to accommodate a wider array of schedules, and now our BMV is superb. So no, I whole-heartedly reject that "government-issued" is in the same class. I refuse to play in faux libertarian narratives.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        > At least in the USA, the problem is that government is underfunded, blamed for bad service, and underfunded some more. And crazy stupid ideas like "social security is the biblical revelations mark of the beast" is some of the reasons why where we are. Or worse, when the same people that parrot the rhetoric that leads to "small govt" get faced with the richer/more developed states deciding to use their "states' rights" to implement those things on their own, they all get together to label it "unconstitutional". Usually out of fear of the influence it will have on their constituents.

Bostonian 3y ago

"People/companies who make their money through solely holding/selling space are some of the least talented and useful people." It's easy to generalize about about a job one has never done. Building, maintaining, and renovating property to keep up with tenants' demands takes capital, effort and brains.

mistrial9 3y ago
you are defending the people, not the practices, and I support you there.. economics however, are not physics.. things do change, and change is here.
rwmj 3y ago
Don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK the commercial tenant is responsible for shopfitting (and they'd better restore it exactly how it was when they leave!) and maintenance. The commercial landlord of a salon I help with does absolutely nothing, barring taking the rent each month.
- CHY872 3y ago
  Obviously, it depends. If you’re anywhere near London, you’ll probably have visited the Oxford Street/Regent Street/Carnaby/Seven Dials areas. The former is pretty horrible with half the shops fairly transparent money laundering operations, the latter are nice areas to visit with nice shops and restaurants. The difference is that the latter are single-landlord developments where the former is composed of many landlords each trying to get the highest bid. The difference is the landlord’s value add.
  - rwmj 3y ago
    That's more to do with police underfunding plus their general attitude to fraud which is to ignore it.
flangola7 3y ago
Which human-hours created that capital?

RestlessMind 3y ago

Affordable housing is needed for poor people. Poor people stay in expensive areas because that's where jobs and social benefits are. If you don't need office towers, it is mostly because you don't have a big number of jobs there anymore. And with that, you don't have a big number of secondary jobs which affordable housing clients work (food industry, janitors, etc). You also lose the tax base (lower property tax, lower sales tax) and poof goes the revenue which funds social programs most utilized by those who need affordable housing. In short, if a city finds itself not needing office towers, most probably it won't be able to afford affordable housing neither.

jedberg 3y ago
People still want to live in cities for the culture and benefits you can only get when a lot of people are in the same place. And those cultural institutions still need service workers. And people working from home in cities still need service workers too. And the restaurants. There will still be plenty of jobs for folks at the lower end of the spectrum, even if all the offices become housing. Arguably even more, since there would be more cultural institutions open at night.
deaddodo 3y ago
Cities didn't exist until skyscrapers? Weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cities